According to the U.S. Department of Justices, Office of Justice Programs, reentry involves the use of programs targeted at promoting the effective reintegration of offenders back to communities upon release from prison and jail. Reentry programming, which often involves a comprehensive case management approach, is intended to assist offenders in acquiring the skills needed to succeed in the community and become law-abiding citizens. A variety of programs are used to assist offenders in the reentry process, including prerelease programs, drug rehabilitation and vocational training, and work programs.

Recently, a more focused approach to reentry has emerged in the form of reentry courts. Reentry courts offer the opportunity for more extensive management and treatment of offenders beginning at the sentencing phase. Reentry courts seek to promote offender accountability while providing treatment and services during the re-entry process.

Magistrate Valerie Bickerstaff presides over our Re-entry Court and accepts this challenging role with high expectations for the court and its participants. She expressed that by utilizing a holistic approach to assist the young persons successful re-entry will decrease their desire to reengage in illegal and gang related activities. She is actively recruiting community involvement in the hope to build partnerships and create stakeholders who support the goals of the Reentry court. The court utilizes rewards and sanctions as a result of the juvenile’s response to the courts directives. The Magistrates feels that a major challenge of the court is providing quality, effective and meaningful rewards to encourage their continued success and participation, such as employment and educational opportunities.

• Guardian ad Litem Project 30th Anniversary Celebration ~ Friday, September 19, 2008
• 3rd Annual Holiday GALa ~ Friday, December 5, 2008
• Juvenile Law Symposium ~ Friday, December 12, 2008
• 7th Annual GALlop for Children ~ Sunday, December 14, 2008

In re Kayla H., 175 Ohio App.3d 192, 2007-Ohio-6128. Husband and wife appealed the judgment of the trial court, which granted permanent custody for two of their children to Lucas County Children Services Board (LCCSB). The Sixth District Court of Appeals held that both husband and wife were parentally unfit because of the husband’s prior history of sexually abusing children, particularly the future risk of a reoccurrence, and the wife’s unwillingness to leave her husband for the children. Both spouses complied with obtaining outside counseling according to LCCSB’s case plan for returning the children after their initial, non-permanent, relocation to LCCSB. Even though LCCSB was initially involved in the matter primarily because of suspected non-sexual abuse, the husband’s prior history was a relevant factor to consider for the children’s best interest.

State v. Price, 118 Ohio St.3d 144, 2008-Ohio-1974. A CPO conflicted with a later divorce decree on a father’s visitation rights with child; the CPO stated there were no visitation rights until 5 years or until the court modified the order, whereas the divorce decree gave discretion to the mother as to visitation rights. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the parts of the order restricting abuse by the father remained in effect, but the conflicting terms of the divorce decree and the CPO should be construed most favorably toward the father because he was charged criminally for violating the CPO. Boundaries between parties for visitation rights and contact should be clear and not ambiguous when a CPO is issued and then a divorce decree.

Rankin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dept. of Children & Family Servs., Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2567. The Ohio Supreme Court held that a political subdivision is exempt from civil liability when employees of the agency allow a father to conduct “supervised” visits with his daughter and he subsequently allegedly sexually abuses his daughter. A “special relationship” exemption may exist, but this exemption is only useful to establish duty in general and not preempt legislative intent to have immunity for political subdivisions when there is not a specific statute creating an exemption from immunity. The issue of whether the employees acted recklessly was remanded to the trial court.

Kraynak v. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2618. The Ohio Supreme court held that the former version of R.C. 2151.421 triggers a duty to report only when an individual subjectively believes that abuse toward a child has actually occurred (agreeing with the trial court), and noted that the General Assembly’s amendment to the statute creates an objective standard (which the appellate court used). The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County that an expert witness should not interpret the meaning of R.C. 2151.421 for a jury. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case to the court of appeals because, under former R.C. 2151.421, in determining whether a person knows or suspects child abuse for purposes of reporting it to the proper authorities, the standard is subjective. Because the appellate court’s reversal of the jury verdict and granting a new trial were based on the combined effect of the jury instruction and inadmissible testimony, the case was remanded to the court of appeals for the court to consider whether the error in admitting part of the expert testimony alone requires reversal of the jury’s verdict, or whether it was harmless error under Civ.R. 61.

O’Toole v. Denihan, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2574. A suspected abuse case was referred to Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) by a daycare. An intake supervisor at CCDCFS sent a recently hired employee to investigate the report. Upon meeting with the child and then following up with the mother, the employee did not suspect that the child had been abused. CCDCFS decided to continue monitoring the mother, her boyfriend, and the child. Two months later, CCDCFS received notice that the child had died. During the two months that the CCDCFS was involved, the employee did not adhere to all of the standards of the organization. Additionally, there was no report made to any law enforcement agency about the abuse. The Ohio Supreme Court held that CCDCFS has no duty to report “possible” child abuse to a municipal authority, unlike the law enforcement agency’s duty to so notify a child services agency. Secondly, the breach of organizational rules in this case did not lead to reckless behavior on the part of CCDCFS, nor did the intake supervisor’s conduct rise to that level. However, the Court did not specifically address or conclude whether the employee’s conduct was reckless, or whether the policies of CCDCFS were recklessly made and implemented. Reversed and remanded.

• To remain on the GAL Appointment List, GALs must provide the GAL Project with a copy of the Declarations page on renewal of their professional liability insurance.
• To remain on the GAL Appointment List, GALs must take 2 one-half day Advanced Trainings every year.